is democracy strongest when governmental authority is weakest?

[lemur]

My general impression is that democratic civil discourse is most anti-critical during a popular regime. In fact, this may even form the basis for authoritarianism since people are most afraid to dissent when what they are dissenting from is overwhelmingly popular. An extreme example would be the difference between the way Hitler was "heiled" during the height of Nazism compared with how he is regarded since. A less extreme example might be the way dissent was repressed and feared shortly after 9/11 compared with the popularity of criticizing Bush as a bad president since. This begs the question of whether unpopular leaders should in fact be replaced with more popularly legitimated ones or whether it stifles critical democratic discourse to do so.

[imatfaal]

This presupposes that those in "overwhelmingly popular" regimes have as many and as deeply held grievances as those in despised regimes; and yet they refrain from voicing these injustices due to fear of community opprobrium. Without firm facts to the contrary I would prefer to believe that the reason many people are happy to stay silent within the modern democracy is that they accept that their situation is not that bad. Within repressive regimes those who express dissent are punished, ostracised, and perhaps even murdered. Thus it is quite possible that the net result in terms of complaints of both an advanced, benevolent, and widely progressive democracy and a hugely repressive fascist state might approximate each other; mostly silence, but one rooted in contentment and the other in fear.

[rktpro]

No, Democracy is strongest when leaders change quite rapidly(by election). If, the government authority is weakest, people will not vote for it and it will change.

[lemur]

This presupposes that those in "overwhelmingly popular" regimes have as many and as deeply held grievances as those in despised regimes; and yet they refrain from voicing these injustices due to fear of community opprobrium. Without firm facts to the contrary I would prefer to believe that the reason many people are happy to stay silent within the modern democracy is that they accept that their situation is not that bad. Within repressive regimes those who express dissent are punished, ostracised, and perhaps even murdered. Thus it is quite possible that the net result in terms of complaints of both an advanced, benevolent, and widely progressive democracy and a hugely repressive fascist state might approximate each other; mostly silence, but one rooted in contentment and the other in fear.

I don't know if there's an objective way to study it, but I would venture to guess that as popularity of a certain government official or ideology grows, the greater apprehension people feel to question, resist, and dissent from what they see increasingly as a social imperative. The Asch experiments in conformity provide maybe a little insight, but I think more can be found in the way trends in politics and consumption are narrated. Unpopular political positions are not only reasoned with in a neutral way but demonized and otherwise discursively bullied. This sends the signal to the public not to identify with unpopular ideologies. Yes, some people will be brave enough to take sides with the oppressed, but how many will side with the dominant ideology to escape oppression? I think it's ironic that you compare "advanced, benevolent, and progressive democracy" with "a hugely repressive fascist state," because I think the latter sincerely believes that it's the former. But how can democracy claim to be progressive where progress is taken to mean unified movement? Isn't democracy the interaction of conflicting viewpoints without fear of dissent? If dissent is repressed by pleasure of reward instead of pain of punishment, is that any less repression? And when consent is given out of fear of dissent as having the painful consequence of being treated as a social pariah, isn't that also a form of coercion albeit an unintentional one? Yet when the Hitler or the Bush becomes exceedingly unpopular and thus popular to criticize, political critique gets socially rewarded instead of stigmatized. Isn't that more conducive to dissent and thus democracy?

Edited March 24, 2011 by lemur

[imatfaal]

Your argument relies on the fact that dissent is constant and varies only due to level and method of repression; I think this position is difficult to justify and would be harder to prove. The fact that ideology can be used to constrain thought and thus limit even the thought of dissent does not preclude the fact that some societal structures will engender less cause for dissent. Not all contentment is founded in ignorance maintained by the machinations of a hegemonic ideology - I would go as far as to say that within the societies I have lived in, the vast majority of "acceptance of one's lot" and happiness is based in awareness and knowledge.

[CaptainPanic]

Democracy is strongest if the population is well-informed and when there is a wide choice of parties which are capable of cooperating and forming coalitions.

It has nothing to do with the strength of the government.

[lemur]

Your argument relies on the fact that dissent is constant and varies only due to level and method of repression; I think this position is difficult to justify and would be harder to prove. The fact that ideology can be used to constrain thought and thus limit even the thought of dissent does not preclude the fact that some societal structures will engender less cause for dissent. Not all contentment is founded in ignorance maintained by the machinations of a hegemonic ideology - I would go as far as to say that within the societies I have lived in, the vast majority of "acceptance of one's lot" and happiness is based in awareness and knowledge.

Having watched "recession" define people's economic attitudes in one way or another for so much of my life, I have come to the conclusion that "'acceptance of one's lot' and happiness" suffers from a sense that there is some level of materialism that was once possible or that is potentially possible but not being 'provided' by 'the economy.' I have found that when people are economically comfortable, they resist dissent because they view it as a potential disruption of an economic status quo that favors them. Then, when they are economically uncomfortable they resist dissent even more because they see it as an impediment to finding their way back into the money. The only time I see (most) people dissent is when some official or other cultural visibility is regarded as unpopular and then these same people will dissent because it is popular to do so. Precious few people resist being "flocking sheeple."

 

 

Democracy is strongest if the population is well-informed and when there is a wide choice of parties which are capable of cooperating and forming coalitions.

It has nothing to do with the strength of the government.

I think you're assuming that democracy refers to party-representation and governance by delegations. I'm referring to the civil discourse at the ground-level of democracy. Much of the time in "democracy" people are being represented in parties and have their governance delegated in a way that pacifies them by reflecting their political self-image BUT at the same time they are caught in a fear to dissent from myriad institutions. Such institutions range from democracy itself, to a party ideology they have come to support and defend against others, to even their own self-image. I.e. at the most radical level, citizens in democracy get caught up in authoritarian culture that usurps their freedom prior to its governance. This is why I think a critical function of representative democracy is to give such people impetus to dissent, because this is what liberates their political will from submission to "the benevolent dictatorship of popular rule." Of course there is resistance to this form of liberation because people have become comfortable with preferring benevolent authority over the vulnerability of individual responsibility that comes with being in a state of dissent.

Edited March 24, 2011 by lemur

[CaptainPanic]

I think you're assuming that democracy refers to party-representation and governance by delegations. I'm referring to the civil discourse at the ground-level of democracy. Much of the time in "democracy" people are being represented in parties and have their governance delegated in a way that pacifies them by reflecting their political self-image BUT at the same time they are caught in a fear to dissent from myriad institutions. Such institutions range from democracy itself, to a party ideology they have come to support and defend against others, to even their own self-image. I.e. at the most radical level, citizens in democracy get caught up in authoritarian culture that usurps their freedom prior to its governance. This is why I think a critical function of representative democracy is to give such people impetus to dissent, because this is what liberates their political will from submission to "the benevolent dictatorship of popular rule." Of course there is resistance to this form of liberation because people have become comfortable with preferring benevolent authority over the vulnerability of individual responsibility that comes with being in a state of dissent.

I agree that this is always a threat to democracy itself. If people no longer make their own free choice, but instead get influenced what to vote for, then the system collapses. That's also not a real democracy... that's a sort of oligarchy or even despotism.

 

In a democracy, voters cannot be influenced who they vote for, not by a friend or local, and certainly not by those in power (but unfortunately, this actually does happen in every democracy in the world - campaigning is important for a reason). So, when it comes to influencing voters, I agree that a "governmental authority" should be "weak".

 

In a multi-party democratic system, and a well-informed electorate that it free to choose according to their own ideals and wishes, the democracy can still function regardless of how strong the government is. And then I define "strong" as "capable to come to decisions and actions representing the majority of the voters".

I hope I understood your post correctly - you're writing long and complicated sentences, and English isn't my 1st language

[lemur]

I agree that this is always a threat to democracy itself. If people no longer make their own free choice, but instead get influenced what to vote for, then the system collapses. That's also not a real democracy... that's a sort of oligarchy or even despotism.

 

In a democracy, voters cannot be influenced who they vote for, not by a friend or local, and certainly not by those in power (but unfortunately, this actually does happen in every democracy in the world - campaigning is important for a reason). So, when it comes to influencing voters, I agree that a "governmental authority" should be "weak".

Ok, this is the ironic thing about modern authoritarianism: it derives strength from gentleness of command. I.e. aggressive personalities get immediately identified and resisted as being Hitler-esque or Napoleonic, etc. It is the soft-spoken, kind authority figures that seduce people into submitting to their "gentle authoritarianism." With modern media, authority can even be completely disconnected from any human individual or people. Sometimes we are motivated to consent to certain ideologies just because they are portrayed as sensible in the media and, of course, dissent is portrayed as a form of aggression or hate. The message is that if your heart is filled with love instead of hate, you would not make waves by going "against the flow." In this mode of gentle, decentralized authoritarianism, when/how is political/cultural independence supposed to emerge except as part of a popular trend of political dissent from an unpopular regime?

 

In a multi-party democratic system, and a well-informed electorate that it free to choose according to their own ideals and wishes, the democracy can still function regardless of how strong the government is. And then I define "strong" as "capable to come to decisions and actions representing the majority of the voters".

Multiparty politics can also factor into authoritarian propaganda machinery. Right-wing parties, for example, are used as black-sheep to motivate people to support left-wing parties out of fear for the alternative. This happened pretty strongly during the Bush presidency and I believe it also has been happening in the way the Tea Party movement is portrayed. I don't pay attention to European politics as much as I should, but there seems to be a typical theme of right-wing "extremism" rising in times of economic dissatisfaction to motivate support for social-democracy and/or social-economic welfare structuring more generally.

I hope I understood your post correctly - you're writing long and complicated sentences, and English isn't my 1st language

Don't automatically blame it on language. I might just have a habit of writing complex sentences or you might just have a habit of dealing in simple sentences in whatever language you're working with.

 

 

[imatfaal]

Lemur - could you elaborate on the definition you are using are using for authoritarianism? I think some concrete examples might help. My internal working definition of authoritarianism does not include "softly-spoken" kindly and persuasive societies. I would characterise authoritarian states as those that exist through the arbitrary exercise of power by an unelected elite with an active suppression of free speech both openly through propaganda and through violence (with a varying amount of secrecy). I do not consider the UK to be an authoritarian state (although of course it has its moments which might be becoming more frequent)nor any of the states of EU12/15. I do consider the rule that Britain exercised in India and other colonies as authoritarian - and I would also include such countries as Vietnam, Kuwait, at present